Rondeau v. Bisignano
- Elizabeth Wright
- 0:24-cv-02049
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 69
In Rondeau v. Bisignano, Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright upheld the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits to a veteran named James R., finding that substantial evidence supported the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that he was not disabled and could perform certain medium-level jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
Veterans and other individuals who have been denied Social Security Disability Insurance benefits based on mental health conditions (including PTSD, depression, and anxiety), sleep disorders, and physical impairments, particularly those challenging ALJ decisions about whether their conditions meet Listings criteria, RFC assessments, and vocational expert testimony at step five of the disability evaluation process.
What happened
In Rondeau v. Bisignano, James R., a veteran, sought federal court review of a Social Security Administration decision denying him Title II Disability Insurance benefits. He claimed disability based on combat-related stress, sleep apnea, insomnia, PTSD, depression, anxiety, panic disorder, and alcohol use disorder, with an alleged disability onset date of March 1, 2018. After his application was denied at the administrative level, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing and concluded he was not disabled, finding he retained the capacity to perform certain medium-level jobs with significant restrictions on social interaction, noise exposure, and physical activities such as climbing. The ALJ identified three jobs in the national economy he could perform: custodian, hospital housekeeper, and laboratory equipment cleaner.
James R. raised several challenges in federal court. He argued that the ALJ wrongly concluded he did not meet the mental health impairment criteria (called 'Listings') for depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and trauma. He also argued the ALJ improperly assessed his ability to function at work — including his physical limitations like stooping and kneeling, his social limitations given a history of anger and assaults, and his subjective complaints about fatigue, sleep problems, and pain. Additionally, he challenged the ALJ's reliance on a vocational expert's testimony, arguing the expert used outdated job descriptions and failed to provide regional job numbers or explain the source of national job count data.
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright denied James R.'s request for remand or reversal and dismissed his complaint with prejudice, meaning he cannot refile this claim. The court found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's findings at each step of the five-step disability evaluation process. The court acknowledged one error — the ALJ failed to explain why she found James R. could frequently stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl when the two state agency doctors gave conflicting opinions on that question — but ruled this error was harmless because the laboratory equipment cleaner job requires no more than occasional postural activities and 25,000 such jobs exist nationally, which is sufficient to satisfy the government's burden at step five of the disability analysis.
The detailed version
Case Overview Case: Rondeau v. Bisignano, No. 24-cv-02049 (ECW) Court: U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota Judge: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright Decision Date: September 26, 2025 Outcome: Plaintiff's request for remand or reversal DENIED; Commissioner's brief in opposition GRANTED; Complaint DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Background
Plaintiff James R. (last name not used per court convention for Social Security cases) is a veteran who filed for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits on July 11, 2022, alleging disability as of March 1, 2018, based on combat-related stress, sleep apnea, insomnia, hyperattentiveness, anger management issues, and anhedonia (inability to feel pleasure). His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brenda Rosten on February 26, 2024, the ALJ issued a decision on June 22, 2024 (note: the opinion states a date of 'June 22, 2022' but this appears to be a typographical error given the hearing date), finding James R. not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision the final agency decision. James R. then filed suit in federal court.
The defendant was initially the prior Commissioner of Social Security; Frank Bisignano, who became Commissioner on May 7, 2025, was substituted as defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
The ALJ's Five-Step Sequential Evaluation
Social Security disability determinations follow a five-step sequential process under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4):
1. Step 1: The ALJ found James R. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 1, 2019, and met the insured status requirements through December 31, 2025.
2. Step 2: The ALJ found the following severe impairments: insomnia secondary to obstructive sleep apnea; obesity; major depressive disorder (moderate, chronic); generalized anxiety disorder (chronic); panic disorder with specific phobias; PTSD; and alcohol use disorder.
3. Step 3: The ALJ found James R. did not meet or equal any presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (the 'Listings').
4. Step 4: The ALJ assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC) — the most work a claimant can do despite limitations — for less than a full range of medium work. Specific limitations included: lifting/carrying 50 lbs. occasionally and 25 lbs. frequently; sitting, standing, or walking up to 6 hours each in an 8-hour day; never climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; frequently climbing ramps/stairs; no exposure to extreme heat or hazards; only occasional, cursory, non-collaborative co-worker interactions; only incidental public contact; and a moderate noise environment. The ALJ found James R. could not perform his past relevant work.
5. Step 5: Based on the RFC and testimony from a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ found three jobs existing in significant numbers nationally that James R. could perform: Custodian (~38,000 jobs), Hospital Housekeeper (~40,000 jobs), and Lab Equipment Cleaner (~25,000 jobs). The ALJ found him not disabled.
Key Medical Record Evidence
- The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had granted service connection for numerous physical conditions but initially denied service connection for anxiety and depression (2018). By February 2020, the VA assigned a 70% disability rating for 'unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder' based on factors including unprovoked irritability with periods of violence, inability to maintain effective relationships, chronic sleep impairment, and impaired impulse control. - The medical record showed James R. frequently denied depression, anxiety, fatigue, and PTSD symptoms at many appointments, but at other times presented with depressed mood, anxiety, and anger management issues. - James R. was repeatedly prescribed psychiatric medications (Cymbalta, propranolol) for his anger and mood disorders but repeatedly declined to take them, saying he was uncertain the medications were necessary. - State agency psychologists (Drs. Mannis and Butler) found only mild limitations in all four areas of mental functioning assessed under the Listings. - State agency physicians (Drs. Krishnamurthy and Sporn) gave somewhat differing opinions on James R.'s postural limitations (e.g., one found unlimited ability to kneel/crouch/crawl; the other found only occasional capacity for those activities). - James R.'s retained expert, Emily Tiderington, BSN, RN, opined that James R. had extreme limitations in interacting with others, was incapable of even low-stress work, would miss more than four days of work per month, and met several mental health Listings. The ALJ found Tiderington's opinions unpersuasive as inconsistent with the overall record. - Dr. Brown, a clinician who evaluated James R. in July 2022, opined that James R. was not capable of regular or sustained employment.
Issues and Court's Analysis
1. Whether James R. Met Mental Health Listings (Step 3)
James R. argued he met Listings 12.04 (depression), 12.06 (anxiety), 12.08 (personality/impulse disorders), and 12.15 (trauma). To meet a Listing, a claimant must satisfy Paragraph A (medical criteria) and Paragraph B (functional criteria showing either one extreme limitation or marked limitations in two of four mental functioning areas: understanding/remembering/applying information; interacting with others; concentrating/persisting/maintaining pace; adapting/managing oneself).
The ALJ found only mild limitations in understanding/remembering and concentrating, and moderate limitations in interacting with others and adapting/managing oneself — insufficient to meet the Listings.
The court reviewed each area:
- Understanding/Remembering/Concentrating: The court found substantial evidence supported mild limitations, citing James R.'s own function reports (he said he needed no reminders for medications or grooming, could follow instructions, and had no memory issues), as well as medical records repeatedly showing normal memory, concentration, and attention.
- Interacting with Others: The court found substantial evidence supported a moderate (not marked or extreme) limitation. Although James R. reported two past assaults (pulling a man off a motorcycle in a year he reported inconsistently as 2015, 2018, or 2019; and responding to being hit with a pool cue around 2022), the medical record generally showed he was cooperative and pleasant in clinical settings, denied ideation to harm others, had a close relationship with his son, cared for his elderly father, and testified at the hearing that he had no angry confrontations at work and got along with neighbors.
- Adapting/Managing Oneself: The court found substantial evidence supported a moderate limitation. James R. maintained personal care independently, performed household chores and yard work, cared for his elderly father, and admitted at the hearing he never had angry confrontations at work. His former boss's offer to help him find new employment undermined claims of inability to manage himself at work. The court also rejected James R.'s speculation that the ALJ was concerned about an outburst during the hearing based on comments made about hypothetical questions.
- Tiderington's Opinions: The ALJ found Tiderington's opinions unpersuasive because they were inconsistent with the record. Key reasons included: James R.'s conservative treatment course (hesitant to take prescribed medications, never demonstrated the medications were ineffective before stopping them), his ability to maintain activities of daily living, and the generally normal mental status examinations throughout the record. The court upheld this analysis under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, which governs how ALJs evaluate medical opinions by focusing on 'supportability' (how well the opinion is supported by objective evidence and explanation) and 'consistency' (how well the opinion aligns with other evidence).
2. RFC Challenges (Step 4)
Postural Limitations
The ALJ found James R. could frequently stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl, but the two state agency doctors gave conflicting opinions (one said unlimited; one said occasional). The court agreed the ALJ failed to explain the discrepancy, which was a legal error. However, the court found this error harmless because the Lab Equipment Cleaner position (DOT# 381.687-022) involves no greater than occasional postural activities, and 25,000 such jobs exist nationally — enough to satisfy the step-five burden even if the RFC should have been limited to occasional postural activities.
Social Limitations
The court upheld the ALJ's RFC finding of occasional, cursory, non-collaborative co-worker interactions and only incidental public contact. The two past assault incidents were contextualized (one was a response to an obscene gesture with a disputed date; the other was provoked by physical contact). James R. worked through 2019 with no reported workplace altercations. His own testimony at the hearing confirmed no angry confrontations at work.
VA Disability Rating
Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504 and § 404.1520b(c) (applicable to claims filed after March 27, 2017), VA disability determinations are 'neither valuable nor persuasive' in Social Security proceedings, though the underlying medical evidence must still be considered. The court found the ALJ satisfied this requirement by thoroughly discussing the VA medical records throughout the decision.
Subjective Symptoms
The court upheld the ALJ's partial discounting of James R.'s subjective complaints regarding sleep, fatigue, depression, and obesity. Key factors: (1) sleep apnea was described as mild and did not interfere with work ability; CPAP helped; (2) James R. frequently denied fatigue; (3) depression was described by James R. himself as mild and pre-existing before military service; he refused prescribed medication; (4) no functional limitations from obesity were supported by objective testing showing normal gait, strength, range of motion, and balance; (5) James R.'s extensive daily activities (hunting, fishing, building a farmhouse, exercising 3 miles/day, caring for elderly father, traveling internationally) undermined disability claims; (6) James R. testified his last job ended due to a reduction in force, not his medical conditions.
Undeveloped Arguments
The court declined to address James R.'s conclusory arguments that his arthritis, neck pain, fatigue, and knee noise required limitation to sedentary or light work, finding these were undeveloped arguments unsupported by specific evidence or legal reasoning.
3. Step Five Challenges
Hypothetical to VE
James R. argued the VE hypothetical was less restrictive than the RFC because it did not include the phrase 'less than a full range of medium work.' The court rejected this, explaining that 'less than a full range of medium work' is achieved by the inclusion of the nonexertional limitations themselves (social, environmental, and postural restrictions) in the hypothetical, not by a separate verbal qualifier. The ALJ properly consulted the VE about the impact of those limitations on the occupational base consistent with SSR 83-14.
Outdated DOT
James R. argued the ALJ erred by relying on DOT job descriptions last updated in the 1970s-1980s. The court rejected this, noting the Eighth Circuit and SSR 00-4p direct ALJs to primarily rely on the DOT for job requirements.
VE Data Sources
James R. argued the VE did not explain the source of job number data. The court applied SSR 00-4p (in effect when the ALJ's decision was issued), which does not require identification of data sources. The newer rule SSR 24-3p (effective January 6, 2025) does require source identification but applies only to decisions issued after that date.
Regional Job Numbers
James R. argued the VE was required to provide regional (not just national) job numbers. The court sided with the majority approach in the Eighth Circuit, holding that national job numbers are sufficient where there is nothing to suggest the jobs are geographically concentrated. The court found 25,000 Lab Equipment Cleaner jobs nationally sufficient to meet the step-five burden. (The court excluded the other two positions — Custodian and Hospital Housekeeper — due to the stooping limitation issue discussed above.)
Disposition
- James R.'s brief seeking remand or reversal: DENIED - Commissioner's brief in opposition seeking dismissal: GRANTED - Complaint: DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (James R. cannot refile this claim) - Judgment to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 69-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.